The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 7

symptoms of tbo mndness, such as it we.a, of Antiochus were totally different from those of that or N ebucbadnezzar. There is little resem hie.nee between tbo ma.d pmnks of e. Marquis of Waterford and the antics of e. lunatic that imagines hirmelf e. beast. Belsbnzzar's feast, we are told, was intended to be a picture of the orgies of Antiocbus in the grove in Daphne. Opinions may differ BB to the resemblance between the sign and the thing signified. Belshazzar invites e. thousand of his lords into his palace. Antiochue entertained the whole populace in the grove at Daphne. Antiocbue'e festival lasted thirty days, that of Belebazzar only one night. The point of Belshazzar's feast that specially brought the wrath of God was that he used the sacred vessels for his banquet; there is no reference in history to any such action on the part of Antiochue. Excessive pomp, excessive debauchery, characterized the feast in Daphne, characteristics which are not represented as being markedly present in the feast of Belshazzar. If reference should be made to the fact that wives and concubines were present, and that be regarded as a sign of debauchery, it must b~ remembered that these words are omitted from the Septuagint Version. There is nothing in the history of Antiochus that e.t all corresponds to the story of Darius and hie decree and the condemnation of Daniel to the den of lions: Not only are the events of the history in Daniel ntterly unlike the events of the history of Antiochus, but the characters assigned to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, ancl Darius are utterly unlike what we know to have been the character of Antiochus. Nebuchadnezzar, as presented to us in the Book of Daniel, is a typical Eastern con- queror, vigorous, clear-sighted, but capricio11s, and subject to fits of ungovernable rage. At the same time, there is a deep religiousness of feeling, ready, when he is convinced that he has been wrong, to go to the utmost extreme of hononr to the persons he bas wronged. Take him all in all, he is a stately, a.we-inspiring personage. The writer of the eleventh chapter declares Antiocbus to be a vile person. Such a person as that could never have been declared to be, e.s Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold. Even Belshe.zzar cannot deserve the title of a vile person ; he has promised to highly honour the interpreter of the fiery inscription, and when the tenor of the inscription becomes far other than he would, he does not, as most despots would have done, vent his rage on the messenger of evil; 1 no, he does not bate one jot of the glory and dignity he had promised. Still less could Darius deserve the title of a vile person. He certainly is represented as easily persuaded ; but bis eagerness to save Daniel, and his sorrow when all his efforts proved unavailing, show his character to be very different from that of Antiochus. We may, however, estimate the character of Nebuchadnezzar by the effects that character is represented as having on Daniel, and comparing that with the effect on the Jews of the character of Antiocbus. It is obvious that Daniel bad a high personal esteem for the splendid tyrant, destroyer though he had been of all the glories of Jerusalem. When Daniel is the messenger of evil tidings, when in the king's dream he sees his coming madness, "he was astonied one hour," and had to be reassured by the king before he could tell the dread interpretation. Then the words burst from him, "My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, e.nd the interpretation to thine enemies;" and is anxious that by repentance the king may attain a lengthening of his tranquillity. Oan any one, reading the Books of the Maccabees, imagine a zealous Jew picturing hie model saint maintaining an attitude like that toward Epiphanes? The very idea can only be due to e. defective historic sense on the pad of those who have devised this theory, and on the pa.rt of those who support it. It is further said, in connection with this theory of the pnrpose of Daniel, that th@ 1 Oompare the action of Ahab in regard to Micaie.h (1 Kings uii. 27).  X INTRODUCTION TO